30 July 2019 - Ordinary

The ordinary meeting of Hawkesbury Council, 30th of July 2019. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land, the Darug people, and pay respect to Elders both past and present. I would now like to hand over to the General Manager for some procedural matters.

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Members of the public

Attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our wardens. I would also like to advise members of the public that in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice, meetings of the Council are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the time of the meeting. The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting and to enable the podcasting of Council meetings. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting.

The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with the relevant regulations and the recordings are stored on Council's record management system. For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the Council tonight, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates both to your address to Council and any answers given in response to questions from Councillors. Finally, it is also requested that if any person in the Council chambers has a mobile phone, that they either turn it off or turn it to silent. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Thank

You, Mr General Manager. Do we have any apologies, please?

Leave of absence from

Deputy Mayor, I believe. Yes, Mr Mayor, I've got a request for leave of absence from Deputy Mayor Councillor Mary Lyons-Bucket from Tuesday 16th of July till Tuesday 6th of August 2019, including tonight's council meeting, the 30th of July 2019. Councillor Wheeler.

I think I have apologies from Councillor Rasmussen, but I'm having a slight technical glitch and can't access them,

So I don't know. Well, record it as apologies for now, and if he turns up, we'll cross it off. How's that? Someone like to move we accept the apologies? Councillor Conolly, seconded Councillor Kotlash. All those in favour say aye, declare it carried. Do we have any declarations of interest, please?

No. The minutes from the last meeting, would someone like to move that? Those. Councillor Richards. Councillor Kotlash. Any further discussion? I'll move the minutes. All those in favour say aye, declare it carried. We have two items subject-

Public address, the first item is item 131, and the first speaker is Mr Greg Hall.

Mr Mayor, councillors, this planning proposal has certainly been a long process, almost three years since we first, Council agreed to start the process in December 2016. We've sort of matched or met with everything that the other state government agencies had thrown at us in terms of flooding and access and everything. So we're onto the point of this now. This site, as we talked about initially, is a really significant site for development within the Windsor area. Specifically, it's a very large block of land. It's about 11 blocks, but there's like 5,000 square metres worth of land there. And there's not too many blocks in Windsor that would have that capacity to be able to have such a larger development.

So this is a really important opportunity for Council and for Windsor to be able to get a development on a gateway area on the main road, and also providing that link between the railway line and the Windsor Town Centre as it goes. Again, on page 18 of the Council business paper, the officers have actually talked about the Western Parkland City Liveability Program, and specifically they've said that the site has considerable potential to play a significant role in the revitalisation processes of the Windsor Town Centre. So it's a very important site, and the owner of the property is certainly well aware and is prepared and has agreed to help Council, or work with Council, to achieve these strategic ideas of what Council wants there and work with them to get a development that everybody is happy with.

At this stage, I would like to just maybe finish up, but have maybe a chance for a recall if I need to address anything from the next speaker

Well, we don't normally do that under the new code. Okay. You can now answer questions. Okay. If any councillors have got questions, hopefully that will get you around it. Councillor Tree.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall. So have you had any meetings with the people who are running the livability program at this stage?

I'm aware of not at this stage.

Okay, but you want to work with them because you understand the significance of the site.

Yeah, we have. I think council officers asked us whether we'd be interested, and we've responded back to council saying we're definitely interested in being involved with the process. So at this stage, there hasn't been, I guess, that communication at this stage. Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Councillor Ross. Good evening, sir . I wish to inquire as to what you would see as the commercial advantage of that particular site.

Commercial advantage? Well, obviously from a commercial point of view, it, if you look at what you've currently got there in terms of you've got a car yard there, so any future development is going to be better from a visual point of view than what you've got. But also, too, it is a main gateway, and it is a site that certainly has a bit of exposure. You can't deny that. It's on a main thing. And when you look at the development that's around there, there's a lot of commercial development around there already. You know, you've got the service station, you've got across the road shops, down the road further down towards the railway line there's shops, so it makes sense to fill in the gaps there.

Councillor Ross, another question.

Yes. Do you have any, or does the proponent have any particular inclination as to what type of development may proceed if this gateway proposal goes ahead, sir?

At this stage, not, because we're waiting until such time as we got to this point where Council, if Council resolves tonight to push on and proceed with the final zoning of it, then the client then will then start looking at options and discussing some options with Council, look at some developments of that. But it'll be a mixed development, a combination of residential development and commercial development. But exactly what that commercial development will be, we don't know at this stage.

Right. Retail would seem to be rather in a state of distress in the area. Would you possibly more envisage that it be commercial or services-type accommodation being provided in that commercial area?

Well, it could be anything. Again, it's up to the market. If there's a market there for retail, then retail. If there's a market there for commercial, there's flexibility to allow whatever the market is. You're not going to build something if there's not a market there to be able to lease it out and make it viable, economically viable. Councillor Zamprogno, you had a question? Yes,

Thank you, Mr Mayor. So the recommendation before us contains a single mention of a timber cottage within the subject area that has heritage value. Is the proponent prepared to state at this point of the process that they will recognise and preserve the heritage value of that structure, or that they would prefer to remove that structure? I

Can't answer for the proponent. He is in the gallery if he is prepared to answer that question.

At this point in time, he's not addressing us.

I can't answer. I'm not the proponent, so I don't know. We haven't looked at any developments or anything. But being a heritage item there, right, there is a process by which we have to try and retain it. But I don't know what the designs are going to come up with.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hall. Councillor Ross, you have one last desperate question

Sorry to

Annoy you again, sir. Sorry

To annoy you, sir. The residential component, I gather, is residential over commercial .

I'm just wondering why you would see that as being viable with an ageing population in particular, who would find the ascent and descent rather difficult.

Well, again, you're providing a facility for not only aged people, but for a range of people within the community. Again, these aren't going to be set up specifically for people with disabilities. There will be disability provisions in there in terms of access. We have to under the accessibility requirements provide that. But it's not specifically for aged housing. It'll just be residential accommodation, whether it be rental accommodation or sale. We haven't gone through that at this stage. But there'll be a maximum of 10

Sorry, there'll be a maximum of 10 units. On the site.

Thank you very much, Mr Hall. Our second speaker is Mr

Michael Want. Thanks, Councillors.

Councillors, the planning proposal before you was discussed at the December 16 meeting, and in the same business paper on that date, at page 94, says this at Directions 2.3 under the heading of Heritage Conservation: The objective of this direction is to conserve items, areas, objects and places of environmental heritage significance and Indigenous heritage significance. Then it goes on about Directions at 2.3 at the same page. At 4, a planning proposal must contain provisions that facilitate the conservation of items, places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects or precincts of environmental heritage significance to an area in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item, area, object or place identified in the study of the environmental heritage of the area.

I end the quote there. I see this area as covering an area or precinct just not as known as Leeholm, but the whole area. In that area you have the old railway hotel. About 150 metres away, you have the old railway station, the old cemetery over the road, Quay Park, the two St Matthews, and many more. There is a building opposite the site which also are ancient for Windsor. Windsor is a historic place, one of the five Macquarie towns. The number two rating that an online survey found in the Hawkesbury Community Strategic Plan 2017-2036 to recognise and promote heritage at page 19 of the document and also at page 30, Our Future

At page 30, there's a number of dot points that refers to the heritage, and I want to just refer to those in the Hawkesbury Community Strategic Plan. Unfortunately, I couldn't print it off tonight, so I've got this iPad that I find a bit difficult.

The three dot points that I refer to at page 32 are: one, this is how you're going to test if you're upholding the heritage that we cherish. The first dot point: our city will be planned to minimise impact on our heritage and unique lifestyle. Two , our city will remain recognised for its unique built heritage. And three, we will use our heritage buildings in better and more creative ways. Now, councillors, I guess what I'm saying in relation to this matter is that I'm not actually opposed to the development, but I am opposed to the development that wipes out the heritage and the heritage precinct of the area. Like, I think it's about time that council, and I think we are doing this, took the bull by the horns and made sure we protect our heritage areas as the Community Strategic Plan says, and we improve of them.

Now, I don't think it's just to protect Leichhardt in this matter; it's the whole area that we're talking about. And I think it's essential that we do that, and I'm calling on the councillors to push that way. What I would suggest is that— Maybe Council should refer this matter to the Heritage Committee. There's a number of heritage experts on that committee to have a look at this, because if we go ahead and develop like we have over in Macquarie Street with that ugly building over there, or some of the buildings in Richmond in Windsor Street, near around the public school, it'll be just another day to nail the coffin of heritage in Windsor. So , Councillors, I'm suggesting that you ought to send it off to Heritage for a look at it and to come up to see whether or not some of the quotes that I've made would be strengthened, certainly if we looked at the whole area and not just the leerhole building.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Want. Are you willing to take questions? I am. Are there any questions for Mr. Want? Apparently not. Thank you. Oh, sorry, is that a question? No. Thank you, Mr. Want. Matter is open for discussion. Councillor Tree.

I want to move the recommendation in the business paper.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Conolly. Councillor Tree, you wish to speak to it?

Yes, please, Mr. Mayor. This site has been available for a really long time and, as anyone who drives past it, it's not actually a beautiful-looking icon currently . I would like to see something happen with this site, and I don't know what that looks like. I actually don't know what it looks like, but I do know that the Livability Program

Has been doing some pretty good work around the area, and I would hope that they would have met with the owners so that they could come to some sort of reasonable agreement so that the heritage and all of those aspects are considered in the redevelopment. I agree, we don't actually really want to see a— The types of things that are over on the other side there, because I don't think that that will enhance our area whatsoever. I think that what we tend to do is tell people a lot about what we don't want them to do, but then won't give them any really clear, realistic direction in what it is that we actually want. So I'm hopeful with this new program that the minister for—the director for planning's been working on will be able to better guide the type of feel and vibe that we want to achieve at these gateway sites, and also to be understanding that these things have a commercial value, not only just a heritage value, but a commercial value.

And so there's a very important balance that does need to be met there, because I think that's a reasonable way forward.

What else was I going to say? I might come back to me after. Thanks, Mr Mayor.

Thanks, Councillor Tree. Any further discussion ? Councillor Conolly. Thanks,

Mr Mayor. It's just a question, if that's okay to start,

To someone on staff. Is now the appropriate time to be considering the heritage protection of the site, or would that be something that's dealt with comprehensively at the DA stage?

Mr Conolly.

Through you, Mr Mayor, it would be dealt with through the DA stage.

Thank you. And that was my understanding. I just wanted to check following some of the conversation. I think that, given what we're doing tonight is deciding whether to proceed with a proposed amendment that's been on the cards for a long time, and given that it seems to be the kind of thing that most of our plans say we want, in terms of mixed use, shop top housing, the kind of development we're after, and I think Councillor Tree made a really good point. It's really easy to keep saying, no, we don't want that, or we're not—I mean, in reality, we're not saying no to anything tonight because they're not proposing anything. They're just proposing to change the zoning. They're not proposing any use for it, and that will still be dealt with later.

But I think it's very true, you do have to compare what's there now. You can't just say no forever and protect the car yard. I don't think that's a good outcome either. So I think if there are concerns about heritage, which there might be valid concerns, Council should already be looking at strengthening its protections around heritage so that when it comes to a DA, we're in a position to be able to make a decision on it that reflects the community's expectations. But I don't think we need to knock back a proposed change to zoning that's still going to be a fair way off before anything comes on the basis of concerns around the DA.

Councillor Wheeler. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with both Councillor Conolly and Tree. There is already heritage protection on the property in question. It's currently listed on the LEP, so it does have some level of heritage protection. And Council is currently in a process of improving its heritage listings so that more items are listed. And we're also looking at protections of precincts so that we get a more, I guess, a more holistic approach to the heritage look and feel of certain areas. And really the Macquarie towns in particular are really important, as Mr Watt identified, that run from Thompson Square or even beyond into the peninsula of Windsor, right down into South Windsor, that original Macquarie Town planning of Windsor.

I think this is a really interesting case, and one of the reasons why I supported it when it came to us before is its ability to revitalise that corridor. We know that we have a problem with retail in Windsor, and we know that one of the things that fixes problems with retail are more boots on the ground. And to do that, we need more housing in our town centres rather than on our periphery, where people, once they're in the car, stay in the car. What we need is more people who don't get in the car to start with. The advantage of this property is that it's within walking distance of the shops and the station, so it helps to revitalise that corridor. Mr Hall is also correct. It's not really much of a looker at the moment, despite having a lovely heritage item on it.

It certainly hasn't been used to best advantage, and it's not an attractive gateway to one of our flagship towns, opposite a really important heritage-listed park. It's a good indication, I think, of what we might expect to happen on the floodplain in terms of the state government's ideas on the number of dwellings. It's not a lot of additional dwellings. There's only 10 dwellings allowed on this site. What I would like to see when this goes to the DA stage is good use of green space, because this has the potential to be a very hot site because it's surrounded by so much hardstanding. And what I would really not like to see is something that relied on the park opposite to provide the green space for this development.

I think that would be a real loss. I'm really pleased to see that the applicant is keen to work with the Livability Program. I think that's really useful for us to know because we are going to require some trial sites as we run this out. We're now at the stage of hiring the consultants who will do the work, so this is coming in quite early in that process, unfortunately. But I think we can hopefully, if we can liaise well with the applicant, we can get some good outcomes out of this. I appreciate Mr Want's concerns about heritage conservation. We're not looking at, we're not looking at— hopefully we're not looking at a development that will be far too much out of the scale that we expect in a heritage precinct.

And that's up to us, I think, in the planning documents that we're developing, that we do give applicants a really good indication of what we will tolerate and what we want. You know, we're now talking about building design excellence principles into our LEP and DCP, and I think we have to be quite clear so that when applicants come to us, they know what they can expect from Council and they know what hurdles they have to meet. We've been very reactive in our planning for far too long, and it's high time that we were much more proactive. And I think the discussions that we've had so far, the workshop that we've had, have all been based around that idea. I think we can get a good outcome on this site.

Currently, it's not a good outcome, and I think this could be a real improvement for Windsor long term. Councillor Moss.

Question, please. I'd like to inquire if, that if this proposal were to proceed, can the building height be restricted to 10 metres, or will it be 12? Ms Perrin.

It will be 12 metres.

It'll be 12 metres. Do you wish to speak on the matter as well? Yes

If you don't mind.

Please go ahead.

Thank you. A 12 metre building height in this area is totally out of character with the area. It is higher than the— Accommodation provided at number 413 George Street, closer to the rail.

It is also

Excuse me, Mr Mayor, this is a rezoning. This is not a— We don't— all of that will be dealt with in the DA process, surely.

Can I ask Mrs— It's a lot of detail. It's a lot of minutiae. Could you comment on that, please?

In terms of any DA that comes through, they may not— we don't know how that will come in, whether it's all going to be 12 metres or it will be staggered or— so until that comes in, we don't have that level of detail to reply to the questions, but I understand your concerns.

Thank you, Mayor. I have to look at it from the most pessimistic point of view, in that should a DA come in after this proposal were accepted, a 12 metre structure would be within bounds and would, in all probability, possibly be passed. So therefore, it's not conjecture; it's fact. A 12 metre structure in this area is totally out of character with the area. It also impacts, as does 413 already, on the residents in Brabham Street, who are having their backyards and privacy severely impacted by the residents in 413, and no doubt, depending on whatever might happen later, that high overhanging high structures of two or three levels will also impact them there as well, causing a loss of amenity and possibly even a loss of— As sunshine and daylight and shadowing in any such development. So I am afraid that I, on those grounds, find it out of context and unable to be supported. Thank you.

Councillor Ross, can I just point out to Councillor Tree that what you called a point of order before was not actually a point of order. For a point of order to happen, a councillor has to breach the code of—

I don't think I said point of order. I said that he was wrong

Sorry. I thought you said point of order. My apologies. Councillor Sam Progrner.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I support the recommendation in the business paper, and I think that this is potentially an exciting and overdue opportunity to do something with one of the most significant precincts, you know, in or near our town centres. It has line of sight to some of our most significant civic precincts, McQuade Park, the Town Hall itself, and so on. It is an unloved space. I'm heartened by what I hear from Councillor Wheeler concerning the heritage protection that Leighholm may enjoy, and I hope that that is something that's considered along the way. However, as much as I acknowledge my worthy colleagues in pointing out that things like heritage will be dealt with at the DA stage, it's also worth reminding us here that this is possibly the only time that we do get to discuss this here in the chamber, because by the time it rolls round to a DA, it's taken out of our hands.

It's devolved down to a planning panel, and our public input in that sense has ended. So I think it's entirely appropriate for us to take some time. With perhaps even the proponent in the room to say that, as a community, we would love to see the best design excellence principles implemented in the DA that finally comes to Council, that we would prefer to see the existing heritage and potentially archaeology on that site honoured as the DA process unfolds. Apart from that, I think it's a great opportunity, and I'm happy to endorse it.

Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, thanks, Mr Mayor. I also support the planning proposal. The place does have heritage protection. It is on the government's website as being an item of local heritage significance. Therefore, to demolish it would be somewhat arduous.

Adaptive reuse of heritage is something that should be encouraged, rather than, you know, just have the thing mysteriously catch fire in the middle of the night or a bulldozer accidentally run into it two o'clock in the morning. We should be encouraging the adaptive reuse of heritage, and that's precisely what's happening at the moment with that building in the car yard. It's probably the only endearing thing about the block at the moment. The other thing is that at some of our planning meetings a couple of years ago, we discussed the future development of the LGA and how we, in principle, supported infill development around transport and infrastructure, and that's precisely what this thing allows. It is infill development. It's not massive in terms of dwellings, but shop top housing is exactly one of the things we were discussing.

And I agree with Councillor Zampogno that this is probably our last chance at having some input into what goes on, as everything is taken out of our hands as far as DAs go. But there will be, as Councillor Wheeler said, changes to the development control plan and the LEP coming up. The last thing we want, we don't want to see another orange and grey box like we've got sitting in Macquarie Street at the moment. So hopefully the proponent will work with Council to develop something that's quite worthy of Windsor and of benefit to the community. That's what I hope will happen. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Councillor Tree, would you like right of reply?

Just briefly, I just hope that it is a pretty good opportunity here that we've got ahead of us, and I really would love to see Council and the liveability programs and the applicants or proponents, when this all goes through the gateway process for them, to work well together so that there's an outcome that everyone can be happy with, so that everyone feels like they've got the right thing out of it. That is it. Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Thank you. I will now move the motion, which is the recommendation on page 20 and 21. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Rasmusson, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Cotless, Councillor Samprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Against the motion, Councillor Ross. Absent, Deputy Mayor Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I declare the motion carried.

We now move to item 141, notice of motion. We have two speakers on that. The first speaker is Grant Davenport.

Good Evening, Mayor, Councillor, ladies and gentlemen. What I have been speaking with Ms Richards about is the idea of a median strip to be put in on George Street at Bligh Park, down near the Caltex service station. Basically every day there's no right turn signs there and people choose to ignore it. They cut across the line of traffic. You're contending with people coming off Richmond Road up George Street into Bligh Park and Windsor, and it just creates absolute chaos. There's no crossing down there for school-age children who obviously love the KFC and McDonald's stores that have gone in. And as the parent of an L-plate learner driver and also a young daughter still at Bede Polding, it does concern me for their welfare.

The area is obviously getting busier, and I just think the idea of a median strip would obviously minimise people cutting across into the service station and the McDonald's store. And I don't think it has to be anything over the top. It just needs to be something in place that minimises that traffic. Bede have actually put a policy in now. The principal there has basically banned students from Year 11 and 12 leaving school grounds in free periods because they're worried about them getting down there and— Not crossing the road, so there needs to be some sort of pedestrian island incorporated if possible. That was the motion I put forward to Ms Richards. I haven't got costing on it, but not yet anyway.

I've got a little bit of info on it, but we're getting there.

Thank you. Are you happy to answer any questions there, mate? Yes. Are there any questions?

Councillor Reynolds. Ah, yeah. Thanks, Mr Devonport. On that stretch of road, there's three no right-hand turn signs. Is it all of them that are of concern to you, or just one in particular? Is it one driveway that's causing more grief than another?

No, well it's actually both of them. The 7-Eleven have got signs outside their store as well, and there's been so many accidents there over the years, people waiting to turn in and they get rear-ended. So it's not only the 7-Eleven, but then as you get down towards the Caltex, it doesn't matter how many signs, just every morning, especially tradies, they just cut across in there because they don't want to go around the roundabout.

Yes, so it is that whole stretch. Yeah. And is your concern, your main concern, in relation to people, students, kids crossing the road, or students, kids, people walking up the western side of the road, across the driveways where the people are turning in? No

Well it's more, I guess it's students crossing from, say, Bligh Park side of George Street across to the KFC and the McDonald's there, because they're not only contending with normal traffic, but then you have cars coming off Richmond Road up into Windsor. It's just every afternoon, it's a chaotic death trap just to get into Bligh Park.

Okay, cool. Okay, thank you.

Any more questions? Thank you, Mr. Davenport. Thanks, thank you. Our next speaker is Mr. Joshua Joyce.

Good evening, Mayor, Councillors, staff and the public. I am Joshua Joyce from Bligh Park and I am speaking on behalf of the Bligh Park residents about safety issues on George Street, South Windsor, on the Richmond Road, on the Richmond end. I recommend that we put in an overpass because I myself and multiple kids from Bede and Bligh Park School are constantly trying to get over there, but because it's not safe, their parents have stopped them from going over there. Like I have too. My parents have stopped me from going over there because it's just unsafe. And not me and my friends have all wanted to go over there and get McDonald's and slushies and stuff because it's cheap and because we're just kids, we just want to have fun.

So we want to, like, buy food, eat it all and then just do anything. So I've seen many people trying to cross that road and they have almost been hit by a car. I've seen kids sprinting across, people on bikes, scooters just walking across the road. I myself have tried to go over there multiple times and have started and then had to sprint back because there's a car coming along

And— I personally just don't feel safe anywhere near that road during school pick up and school drop off in the mornings. I am constantly seeing kids from Bede before they go to school trying to cross there to get to Macca's and have some, like, a muffin or something. The accident, if there's an accident, it can affect not only the person but the driver involved because then there's a lot more traffic. And if there's an overpass, pedestrians can still get over that, get over the road without having to weave through traffic, bumper to bumper. So, and if there's a person walking across the road and they get hit by a car,

We could just avoid all that if we had a safe way to cross it. Like if we put a traffic light in, people can stop, people can go across the road, and they can continue to go. But if we had, like, an overpass, it wouldn't have to worry about that, so the traffic can keep on going and people can just walk over the traffic and get over safely. I also would recommend, because there's no pathway up over there, so if you build an overpass, you would probably need to build a pathway leading up to it so people aren't working on dirt and gravel and stuff. Yeah, that's all I have to say today.

Thank you very much. Are you happy to answer any questions? Yeah. Do we have any questions? No? Thank you, Mr Joyce. That was very good. Congratulations. Thank you.

Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I'm going to move an amendment to my motion, but before I do, I would just like to thank both the speakers who attended here tonight. Mr Davenport Grant has been phenomenal in championing this cause and making sure that awareness has been raised on this issue. As a resident of Bligh Park, and as someone who obviously drives there every day and has teenage children who are driving and also using the precinct, so I'd like to thank you for your advocacy on this issue and approaching the decision makers who can actually do something about the issue. I'd also like to thank young Joshua, who has— Only late this afternoon decided to contact on this issue, not even aware that the motion was up tonight, and wanted to chat to me about the safety of that issue, and the wheels were set in motion for him to come and speak tonight.

So, Joshua, well done. And if you speak like that as you get older throughout school, I commend you on your ability to come and address the Mayor and Councillors with so little notice. Well done. You did a great job.

You need to move your—

Oh, sorry, I'd like to move my amendment, please. After further consultation with other community members who knew about the motion, I'd like to move an amendment to make a holistic approach to the entire motion. So, essentially, point one: investigate the options for a holistic pedestrian safety, traffic management and road safety approach to the vicinity of McDonald's and KFC at George Street, South Windsor, including down to the roundabout at Bligh Park. Point two would be to write to the Member, Robyn Preston MP, the Member for Hawkesbury, requesting an on-site meeting with the Member, Council staff and the RMS to discuss the issues and resolve to address them with the aim of seeking appropriate works to improve safety at this location. I know you probably didn't get all of that just then, but that's the crux of my amendment. Did you want me to—

We need a seconder now. Seconded, Councillor Tree. Yes, Councillor Richards, please continue.

Thank you. So, while the issue of the median strip has been raised to me, and as someone who grew up in Bligh Park and knows the area well, I was happy for Grant to contact me to discuss all of these issues. But upon speaking to others, as I've already said, we really need to have a whole holistic approach discussion about this area from the roundabout in Bligh Park— Sorry, you're looking at me there.

Okay. From the roundabout in Bligh Park all the way to the other roundabout, which is, you could turn left onto Richmond Road. So there are multiple issues there. It is the drivers of vehicles disobeying the right-hand turns, both into the fast food precinct and out of the fast food precinct. In the mornings especially, when they also do obey the no right-hand turn and turn left to go down to the roundabout, they're then coming around the roundabout to come up to the other side and turn left onto Richmond Road. So it is causing traffic congestion down near that roundabout that doesn't need to be there. So after discussions with the member for Hawkesbury, it's decided that we really need to look at that area as a whole, whether that includes further lanes for traffic there.

And there's no real way tonight in this motion to say what the answer is, but I think that desire for an on-site meeting with representatives from all of those bodies and agencies that I've actually spoke about is the proper way to go about addressing those issues and concerns so that we can actually get some solutions there that address those safety and those traffic problems. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross.

I'd like to ask a question, Mr Mayor, through you to the Director of Infrastructure

The question is, it is within my recollection that during this term of Council we have at least on two occasions raised this matter

With our staff, and as I would understand it, the Director would have quite a significant... Level of knowledge about this area and about RMS's particular inclinations or otherwise at this stage, and I'm wondering if he'd be good enough to provide the meeting with that information at this point,

Mr. Organ. Through you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Ross is correct. This issue has been raised on a number of occasions at the time of the development of both the fast food outlets and the service station down there in terms of pedestrian movements. It's also been raised on a number of occasions, most recently at the last Council meeting, in terms of pedestrian safety along George Street. So it's something that's been ongoing and has been raised. At this stage, we've got no indications from RMS on any works proposed to change that, though.

Could I ask a further question of the gentleman? Yes. Do you have— sorry.

As I would understand it from the meetings that we've had and the discussions that have gone on in this August chamber, you would have been in contact with RMS, and are you able to indicate, to the best of your knowledge, the particular intent and responses from RMS this evening, sir?

Through you, Mr. Mayor, certainly letters have been written, but to date there's been no response or action taken on behalf of RMS, so I'm not aware of anything other than informal discussions.

Could

I ask a further question? It is, would it not be appropriate for this matter to be directed straight to the Traffic Committee and thereby— Pursue matters directly with the other people involved on that committee, including busways and the police and so on, rather than us going down the usual route where we don't get any reply to anything.

I don't think that's a question for Mr Morgan to answer.

Oh, I'm sorry.

The council has put up a notice of motion, which has been put up in duly seconded. Whether what you're saying is a better path is for council to decide. Any

Further discussion? I could always move an amendment. You could

Do that. Yes. Would you like

To do that? Oh, I think it'd be appropriate. Go right ahead.

I would suggest that council, mindful of the representations from the public, seek to pass this matter through the channel of the traffic committee, who no doubt will be able to make representations on behalf of council, and the result of those representations can be subsequently advised to the people who have expressed interest.

Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Reynolds.

It's been moved and seconded.

Do you want to wait till it comes up on the board?

Is anyone, Councillor Wheeler, you wish to discuss before it comes on the board?

I've got a question, Mr Mayor, while we wait for it to come on the board.

Yes. Question is about the amendment, not about the motion.

It's about either, I

Think.

Conveniently, it's about either. Could I, could I ask what— My understanding is that the original DA, which was approved by the previous Council, included the provision of a footpath along George Street. Can I ask what's happened to that provision?

Mr .— Mrs. Perrin.

Mr. Conway. There's a requirement on the development application for that footpath, but that footpath is at the discretion of Roads and Maritime Services. So staff are still in negotiation about the exact location and nature of that footpath, and those discussions have been ongoing for some time.

Thank you. Mr

Talk about the amendment? No.

I'd rather see it first.

I can also add that, and Councillor Rasmussen probably remembers when the application to put these things first came up, we fought very hard to try and get a footpath going all the way down to the roundabout at Colonial Drive, and some kind of crossing to go with it. But the developer fought that very hard, and he won and we lost.

Councillor

Cotless. I don't wonder. Councillor Cotless.

I'd just like to ask a question on the amendment. Has this matter already gone to the traffic committee?

Who can answer that?

Mr. Organ. I'll probably have to take that on notice, but I don't believe that it's been raised there. One of the issues is that this is a state road. Traffic committee can only make recommendations. State road issues are not normally dealt with by the local traffic committee. However, they can make comment on those, but they are a matter for the RMS.

Councillor Reynolds on the amendment. On the amendment, yeah,

I seconded

Councillor Ross's amendment. Sorry, I seconded Councillor Ross's amendment

Yes, in that on the traffic committee, members of the RMS, the police, busways

For example, this issue could be brought to the — I'll just backtrack a bit. The reason I'm supporting the amendment, apart from obviously the people on the traffic committee, is that there's already an outstanding notice of motion dealing with pedestrian issues on that stretch of road, and it was only last month, and it was Councillor Conolly's motion that went up and we passed, and it's that we asked the RMS to undertake a review of George Street, Rifle Range Road, Bligh Park, to ensure optimum operation of Richmond Road roundabouts and to achieve adequate pedestrian access. So, a question to staff: have we received any correspondence back in relation to that notice of motion? It

Didn't, through you, Mr Mayor, we haven't received any response back to date other than the verbal. Okay. The letters have been sent to both the member and to the minister. Okay,

Thank you. That brings up the point I was going to make in relation to sending it to the traffic committee, in that—

Can we add that notice of motion in there?

Yeah, the traffic committee will meet Monday after next, and this item can be raised there. There is, at Pitt Town, there were some intersection issues, and we arranged a site visit, and I must admit it was really good to see that the member for Hawkesbury attend that meeting, and the issues were dealt with. And it was a good outcome. The RMS on the committee are really good to work with. They're quick. I'm concerned that if this goes through the normal process, as the original motion or the amended—Councillor Richards amended her motion—if it goes through that process, it's going to go the long way round, or the normal way round. What we can do with the traffic committee is we can go straight across, and we can bring a recommendation back to council, possibly at the next meeting.

And that will be informed by the RMS, the police, and the bus companies, and then we have greater information to send off to the normal chain. And I dare say that the traffic committee would probably work with the member for Hawkesbury, as we did at Pitt Town, to have a site visit of all concerned. And I just point out that the RMS people who are on the committee would be the RMS people who would make the site inspection, but they wouldn't be directed by the committee to attend; they would be directed the long way round, which is, I think, something we should try and avoid, given the RMS's tardiness in responding to our correspondence, as we found out this week in relation to the North Richmond intersection, where we wrote to them last year and have only just received a response.

So that's why I'm supporting Councillor Ross's amendment. Thanks

Could I ask Councillor Ross and Councillor Reynolds whether you would be okay with what you're saying about the traffic committee being added as a further point to Councillor Richards' original motion, that in fact it goes to both?

And then if yes, can I then ask Councillor Richards whether you'd be happy to have had that?

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Is that my chance now you're asking?

Yes, just a yes or a no. I'd

Be very happy to add the traffic committee to the original motion that's on the board. Thank you.

So you're both happy with that, Councillor Ross and Councillor Reynolds? Stunned looks. Question. So? Have to be reworded.

Yes, but obviously we wouldn't want an on-site meeting with the traffic committee. We would want the issue to go to the traffic committee at the next meeting. Yes.

That's exactly what I've agreed to as per the amendment.

Yes. Just

Hang on, Councillor Ross and

Councillor Reynolds. You want to keep it as a separate amendment. Okay. Thank you. All right, we're still debating that amendment. You wish to talk on that amendment, Councillor Garrow?

I had an amendment that I was going to put up and I just wonder whether either councillors, whether Councillor Ross would possibly consider putting it, which sort of marries the two together. I'd send it through to Mr Wain earlier, and it's a bit of an extension on what Councillor Ross has just put through, if we can.

That would be another amendment. I'm

Just wondering whether Councillor Ross would like to make changes to his amendment.

You can invite him

To

Do that if you wanted to.

Councillor Ross, do you want to change your amendment in any way?

No, he doesn't want to change it.

So we're still debating Councillor Ross's amendment. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. If we could see both the motion and the amendment, that would be helpful. I'm not sure that the amendment currently contains enough detail. So when this comes back to us, it will be without the original motion, which talks about the need for a holistic approach to pedestrian safety in that strip, and I think that's really important. Council was warned, the previous council was warned that this would happen on this site. It didn't heed those warnings, and now we have school children coming and telling us that council acted irresponsibly. That really should cut us to the core. That is core council business, that we act in the best interests of the safety of the most vulnerable of our communities.

If we've got schools changing their policies so as to restrict the freedoms of their students because council, in conjunction with a developer, have made a poor decision that leaves people's safety at risk, then this council has acted very badly in the past, and it behoves us to fix it as quickly as we can using whatever mechanisms that we have. The amendment doesn't state that that's actually what we want. The amendment just states that we want it to come back to us. So I think the amendment —I'm fine with this going to the traffic committee. I think that's a really good idea. But I think the information that's contained in the motion needs to be incorporated into the amendment, for that amendment to have—when this appears as a resolution of council, divorced from the rest of the report down the track, it needs to have that additional information in it.

So I think. I would urge Councillor Ross to reconsider incorporating some of that information into his amendment. Otherwise, I can't support it.

Thank you. Any further speakers on Councillor Ross's amendment? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Look, I'm speaking against the amendment, and rather fear that we're talking past each other at the moment. Councillor Richards has already agreed to incorporate into her wording, which we've now heard from around the chamber, which has merit, an additional reference to refer this to the Traffic Committee. I think that satisfies all parties. Rather than bring the body of the motion into the amendment, the motion will be amended with Councillor Richards' consent to include the desire to refer it to the Traffic Committee. I think we're overthinking it.

I did ask whether the mover of the amendment would like to have that happen, and he said no. I might ask Councillor Richards again later whether she would like to amend her motion, but not at this point. Councillor Conolly.

Yeah, I'm going to speak against the amendment on the basis that we're currently arguing about whether we should write to the local member and refer it to the Traffic Committee, or just refer it to the Traffic Committee. And I think that's something that this council could work on, whether we're actually making meaningful decisions and doing actual work when we're speaking, or we're just playing games, because there is nothing wrong with just doing both. There is no downside at all. There is not any downside to doing both, and we're just spending time arguing about nothing. Question,

Councillor. Just a clarification for Councillor Conolly: the member for Hawkesbury is on the Traffic Committee. Okay, so it's not one or the other.

No, I'm not. Just for your information, you said send it to the traffic committee or right to the local member. The local member is part of the traffic committee.

Thank you for that. Any further speakers? Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Ross's amendment.

Councillor Ross's amendment, and I want to speak in favour of it. We have a committee, and it's called the Traffic Committee. It is charged with investigating issues to do with traffic, safety and otherwise. That's what the whole committee is all about. So why would Council separately investigate all the points that are listed in item one of the motion? I would have thought that that part of the motion could have been incorporated, or could be, if that makes it easier for councillors to get a handle on it, to put that into the amendment and to direct, if we like, although I don't think it's necessary, direct the Traffic Committee to do its job properly. I don't have any evidence that the Traffic Committee hasn't done its job properly over the odd 20-odd years that I've been on Council.

So I don't know that they need, you know, very fine-tuned guidance to do their job. I think it's, to me anyway, it's important, it's sufficient for it to be referred to the Traffic Committee, who will then do their job, which will be to investigate the safety of that area. We all know , and as the Mayor said, you know, for some years now, that issue has been a problem. The safety, once the KFC, once the McDonald's went in there and the KFC, it was clear that there was going to be an issue there. Most of us could see that. Most of us. Not all of us. In fact, insufficient numbers could see it because the mayor and myself, and I think there were a couple of others, who just could not get that message across.

And I remember a couple of councillors, one in particular, who argued strenuously that the footpath should not be the responsibility of the developer to put in place. I can remember that very clearly, that that was the case. And here we are, some years down the track, saying, Oops, all of those developments, or those developments that we put through, oh yes, there is a problem for the residents, and we need this young gentleman to come along, as Councillor Wheeler said, and said this is a debacle. All of us do it. He admitted it. He does it, and all of them do it, or most of them do it. And it's an issue. A gentleman from Bligh Park has gone, Hey, wait a minute, I've got kids. This is an issue.

Well, it's not something that we discovered today, or yesterday, or a week ago. It was something that was clear some years ago. So my suggestion is that we stay with Councillor Ross's amendment. We refer to the traffic committee. That is the committee of council who will look at this stuff. That's their remit. Let them do their job. Let them bring it back to council. And as Councillor Reynolds pointed out, all the key players are on this committee, on the traffic committee, including the member for Hawkesbury. So why don't we just let them get on and do it? That was the appropriate way to deal with it. Was always the appropriate way to deal with it. So I suggest we stay with Councillor Ross's amendment and refer it to the— to the Traffic Committee, and if we need to give them very detailed, very finely tuned driving instructions, which I don't think are necessary.

Can I move that the motion be put, Mr Mayor?

Sarah.

Have we had

Two for and two against?

My light was already.

Councillor Garrow's light was on first.

I just wanted to ask Councillor Reynolds—Reynolds, Councillor Richard, sorry— if you would consider making some changes to your motion to maybe her amendment?

No, we're talking about Councillor Ross's amendment.

That's not an amendment.

Amended motion. It's an amended motion. We're now talking about Councillor Ross's amendment. Question

We have an outstanding motion, resolution item 11A, which deals with this. I think that that needs to be wrapped up in this as well. Otherwise we've got one letter going to the RMS about pedestrian stuff, and then we've got this motion about pedestrian stuff.

This is—you've already spoken on the matter, Councillor. So

My question to you is:

Can a resolution that's already been passed by Council

Be incorporated into Councillor Richard's motion or whoever's amendment, or do we need to go through some kind of rescinding process to get rid of it and start again?

I might ask General Manager if he'll comment on that.

Mr Mayor, Council can do what it chooses to do. Now , some points and observations have been made. It's up to Council whether it— Determines to act on that, or whether it determines to progress along another way, and that may result in two letters going to two different parts of the same organisation, but it will be Council's decision.

My answer would be, Councillor Reynolds, that if you want item 118, was it, to be considered, you could ask Councillor Ross to add it to his amendment, and you could ask Councillor Richards to add it to her amended motion. But Councillor Garrow's thing is not on the table. Only Councillor Ross's amendment is on the table.

So that would be your choice, and in any second now this amendment is going to be put. So , Councillor Conolly. I move the amendment be put, Mr Mayor.

It's been moved that the amendment be put. That's a procedural motion, I believe, so you don't have to stand up on this one. All those in favour of having the amendment put, please raise—please tell me, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

So the motion is that the amendment be put . So now I will put the amendment, which is Councillor Ross's amendment on the board here. All those in favour of Councillor Ross's amendment, please stand.

In favour of the amendment are Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen. Against are Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler , Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sampragno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards and Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Mary-Lynne Buckett. We move back to the amended motion of Councillor Richards, and the question goes back to Councillor Richards. Would you like to accept that suggested change to your amended motion?

I would be very happy to accept that suggested change and have the matter prior to that go to the Traffic Committee to have the matters assessed in that manner, and then proceed with the rest of the initial motion.

Thank you.

So, our people with the computer can figure that out. Councillor Garry, you're anxious to talk?

Councillor Richards, would you consider making some changes to your motion to ensure that we are bringing in the item 118 from 25th of the 6th? I've added just a bit more detail to what you've got there on my amendment.

If you want

To just put— My suggestion would be

Point 1, I believe, needs to be extended to encompass the area from the roundabout at the Northern Road and Richmond Road, and to Drummond Street, George Street intersection, so that we can get a holistic approach to that entire approach for that precinct.

That's still Councillor Ross's amendment. It's up further.

I don't know whether Councillor Garry's finished.

I also wanted to include as well as the local traffic committee to engage with the RFS, who don't seem to be represented here, and I know that this area does affect them greatly with their approach to their fire shed.

Happy to include. It's part of the original motion here in the background that they are a stakeholder, so very happy for them to be consulted. But they would be as a matter of course anyway, but happy to add it on there. It is mentioned in the motion that they are part of that facility.

Councillor Garrow.

I'll take all these as questions by Councillor Garrow.

Okay.

We still need to encompass the item 118, I feel.

Will you get clarification on that item 118 just before it's added, please?

What clarification are you after? Exactly

What it is .

Item

118 was Patrick's notice of motion.

Councillor Conolly's motion.

From last council meeting.

I think it was the last one, the one before, about Richmond Road and that corner.

If you could read it out, please, Councillor Reynolds, that'd be good. Please turn your light on. Thank you. Oops, where did it go? It

Just disappeared. That's the problem.

I

Have it here. Okay, if that helps. The resolution moved by Councillor Conolly and seconded by Councillor Zamprogno, that Council write to Minister for Roads and Transport to, A, acknowledge the significant improvements to Richmond Road, Marsden Park, in the Blacktown local government area; B, advise that despite the improvements, Hawkesbury residents are still experiencing lengthy delays when travelling on Richmond Road; C, seek a commitment from the Government to widen Richmond Road to the intersection of George Street; D, ask the RMS to undertake a review of George Street to RAAF Range Road, Bligh Park, to, I, ensure optimum operation of the Richmond Road roundabout, and, II, to achieve appropriate pedestrian access; and point 2, Council write to Robyn Preston MP, Member for Hawkesbury, and to Wes Roche to advise of this resolution and seek their support for advocacy.

Do you have any suggested wording on how to link those two together?

I had originally made an amendment to Councillor Richards' point 2 of her original notice of motion, which read, subsequent to those investigations, write again to Robyn Preston MP, Member for Hawkesbury, seeking representation—oh, there it is, you can read it up there.

I'm happy to include as much information in this motion as we possibly can, but I think we all in this room understand the core of what we want from the motion, and I think that this is debating semantics, really, and I think that we just need to decide what we're going to do. We're all on the same page. There's not anyone in this room who's not on the same page in wanting a solution for this area. The amount

Of time we're

Spending discussing it. Yes, it's been an hour. So let's just get down to the business of what we're supposed to do. We all want the best outcome, and I just think— I think we're getting a little too deep into it now when we're just trying to initiate a process. So I'm just looking at this here and seeing if there's anything I want to pick out of it to add. Part one's taken care of. It's going to the traffic committee.

The site visit on my motion will then determine the member for Hawkesbury going to seek any possible budget allocations from that, based on the RMS, what they decide needs to be done once they've got those costings. So, no, I don't want to include that. Item one. I'm happy to mention item 118 was passed in Council at the previous meeting that addresses a part of that, but it doesn't—no, it doesn't add value. They don't need to necessarily be combined. So I'm happy to leave the motion as is.

Can I just add that I was in discussions with the member for Hawkesbury today, and this was some of her advice that she was given for us to tighten the notice of motion so as to give more direction to what it is that we're asking her to achieve on our behalf. I've also had

Those conversations. That may be so. If I could just stop the across the— I mean, can I just stop this across-the-table talk? Councillor Richards says she does not want to accept that into her motion. Your option now is to move a further amendment if you want, or just leave it as it is, okay? So which do you want to do, Councillor Garrow?

Can I just see what Councillor Richards has—

I've added your additional point to add the RFS in point three as a consultative body, and I've taken into account the previous discussion about adding the local traffic committee, which was also part of your point one. So I've added those two elements of your amendments into that motion.

I'll move the amendment. I really want 118 represented. So your

Amendment is the one you had on the board? It's the point of order, Mr Mayor. Yes. I was fairly sure procedurally that when a motion is put, a procedural motion to put the amendment is passed, that the motion then gets put immediately after.

No, that's not the case. Can I ask the general manager to comment on that, please? Mr Mifsud might be a better place to comment. In an effort to

Resolve and take the pressure off, I'm happy to add in point three, in consultation with item 118.

There's no pressure.

There's no pressure,

I know, but this is ridiculous.

So let's just—I'm happy to add on point three, taking into account item 118.

We're not at that point, Councillor. Mr Mifsud, Councillor Conolly has a question about procedure. If you could please repeat the question.

My cautious point of order—I'm not 100% sure, but I was fairly sure that if the council passes a resolution to put the motion or the amendment, that the motion would then be put immediately after the amendment was put, and the matter would be resolved one way or the other.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. My understanding is that if council resolves to put the amendment, and they do, then you would then put the amendment and then follow on through the normal procedure what's on the table at the time.

Which in this case reverts back to the amended motion.

I withdraw my amendment.

Okay, further amendments are possible at this stage. Can I please move that we put the motion, Mr Mayor? Not right now. Why ? Councillor Richards didn't finish what she was saying, and then Councillor Wheeler— I'm very happy to

Accept Councillor Connolly's point there.

Okay, Councillor Wheeler had her light on earlier than you. Thanks

Mr Mayor. I'm happy with either the motion or the proposed now withdrawn amendment. I think that line has probably fixed it. It might be worth, instead of referring to the whole of what is now resolution 145, I think, looking at the minutes, I think that's right, from 118, it's really only point 1D that's relevant to this issue. So we could probably just make specific reference to point 1D.

Happy to do so.

Whether we call that 145 or item 118, I'm not sure what the convention is. What I would like to ask Councillor Richards, though, is if she would consider including representatives from the local school in that meeting. I think it's been really useful to hear from Joshua Joyce about the impact on school children, and I think it might be helpful to hear either from the students themselves or from a representative from the schools that are affected by this, Bead Polding in particular, but also some of the schools, the primary schools as well

I'm definitely happy to do that. Bead Polding, there's two primary schools in Bligh Park, but the schools in the area. But I can see the uniform here is St Luke's, which is Marsden Park, Allara. So how far are we drawing our boundaries? But he's a student—sorry, he's a resident of Bligh Park, so— It's

Your motion, Councillor Richards. Local

School representatives, done.

Thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Ross. Could I make a

Point of order

A point of order

Yes. Earlier, I put my light on and you gave me the call, and then when I moved to procedural motion, you said I couldn't because someone had their light on first. Sorry, you're absolutely

Correct. So

I

Think I'd like to put the motion. I forgot. Councillor Conolly, you want to move a procedural motion? That the motion be put. Okay. It's been moved that the motion be put. All those in favour say aye. Those against? Declared against . Councillor Ross and Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Wheeler declared. Carried, the motion will be put. Councillor Richards, right of reply.

Thank you very much. After some lengthy debate, I'm very pleased that we've come to something that appears to satisfy most councillors in the room. I did just want to say very quickly before I wrap up that there had been a petition undertaken, which was about a thousand or more than a thousand, just over a thousand signatures collected from local residents who agreed that this course of action needed to be taken. So again, thank you for proceeding with that and the advocacy to do that. So very happy for the motion to now be put.

Thank you. The motion has been a right of reply, so now I'll put the amended motion. All those in favour please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Sam Brogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards, Councillor Calvert. Against: Councillor Ross. And absent: Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Thank you.

We now move to Mayoral Minute. You should have received a Mayoral Minute this afternoon,

Which I am putting forward.

Let me just say that this Mayoral Minute is simply requesting that the Commonwealth Government add a question to the recently announced upcoming referendum. The question would concern the recognition of local government within the Australian Constitution. By adding a question to an existing referendum, the cost of the process should be greatly reduced. This Mayoral Minute is not attempting to define the actual question to be asked. That is a process carried out by the Commonwealth Parliament and usually involves a select committee. A referendum on this matter was going to be put forward in 2013 by the Gillard Government, but it was not able to be completed in time for the snap election that was called when the leadership was changed.

Significant work was done on the matter, and it is hoped that the work that has been completed so far can be accessed and applied to a new referendum. This may also significantly reduce the cost. A committee studying the matter in 2013 indicated that recognition in the Constitution could take at least three forms. Number one, symbolic, which leaves the state and federal powers unchanged. Number two, financial, which could allow future Commonwealth governments to dedicate, for example, a fixed percentage of Commonwealth taxation, perhaps the GST, to local government. Three, practical. This is symbolic plus protects the interest of local government, for example in matters of amalgamation. The exact question to be asked in the referendum would address some or all of these matters.

In summary, there are four main reasons why we should support this referendum. It would remove uncertainty created by the High Court cases of Pap and Williams. The Pape case created doubts about the constitutional validity of direct funding to local government, for example the Roads to Recovery funding. This uncertainty still remains. It would simply codify a long-standing and widely supported practice. Number three, it would acknowledge the contemporary role of local government in Australia, in particular the expanding service provision role. Number four, it would support the financial sustainability of local government. Recognising local government in the Constitution would give the Commonwealth the right to have a direct funding relationship with local government when it is working in the national interest.

I'm sure that we all agree that adequate resourcing of local councils to meet the needs of their communities is in everyone's interest. I put the mayoral minute to you for discussion. Any discussion? Councillor Ross.

Could I ask a question, please? Earlier in your dissertation, you used the words upcoming referendum.

Yes, I did.

Could you please elaborate on that?

I was talking about the referendum that the current government suggested or promised that it would be holding in the next year or two regarding... The relationship between the Aboriginal nation and the Constitution. I'm suggesting we add a second question to that referendum.

Is that clear? Thank you. Yes, I think it may be a step too far, but never mind. Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. I'm happy to support this motion. I note that the Local Government Association has been supportive of this move for a long time. Frankly, this is long overdue. The Greens have been pushing for this via former Senators Lee Rhiannon and Bob Brown since 2010.

What this does is prevent local government being at the whim of the state government, so seen as sort of the poor cousin, really. What we've seen from the constitutional anomaly of not recognising this important level of government is that we then become threatened with amalgamations, with major changes to local government that we've seen in Queensland, where we have one-member wards. We've had threatened sackings, as the Blue Mountains have experienced. We've seen loss of our planning powers. Nothing that we do here is protected in the Constitution, and that, I think, is a bad place for organisations that have turnover in excess of a million dollars annually and are responsible for really important areas of people's lives, including their safety, their waste collection, their libraries, the boring stuff that other levels of government simply aren't interested in, that we do as a matter of course as a public service.

And I think it's high time that we were recognised. So I'm happy to support this, Mayor or minute.

Any further speakers? Councillor Zamprogno.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. As local government representatives, we have an obligation to kind of defend our turf, to stand up to other tiers of government, to remonstrate with them when the need arises, even if they are of the same political hue. And we often have cause to do so, because federal assistance grants from the federal government have dropped by, you know, half in real terms since 1996. And we are talking regularly about the effects of cost shifting between governments. I am torn about whether the recognition of local government in the Constitution is the right remedy, because it's also replete with a series of risks that it will simply entrench centralisation and bureaucracy in the dispensation of federal funds to local governments, and that's probably not what we're aiming to do.

It's cheeky for Councillor Wheeler to suggest that this democratic idea was conceived and then promoted by Greens senators over the last 10 years

Because there was, of course, two previous referendums on this very question of constitutional recognition of local government in 1974 and in 1988. And of course, on the most recent occasion in 1988, fewer than one Australian in three saw fit to support the motion. So, you know, unless there has been a very seismic shift in the way that the nation perceives the role of local government, any proposed referendum may go the same way. And of course, the only reason that we're here talking about this now is because despite committing themselves prior to the 2007 federal election to bring this matter to a head, the Labor Party were in power for six years and then ran the clock out and were unable to bring this to a conclusion before Kevin Rudd declared an election in August 2013.

So. You know, the federal government already has significant powers to give funds to local governments. They can do it through the states. They can do it under Section 96 of the Constitution as it is. The constitutionality in the Pipe and the Williams cases, I don't think, particularly affect the ability for the federal government to get us money when they need to for a particular purpose.

The issue that I would wish to see dealt with, if we were granted constitutional recognition, is to just end the endless cost shifting. I'm less concerned about the symbolic significance of this, but the ability of other tiers of government to foist more and more responsibility on us without a commensurate increase in our revenue base is really becoming very tiresome. Local governments in Australia do a lot. We don't do as much as local governments in other parts of the world are obliged to do. We in Australia, in local government, have 27 percent of the infrastructure burden, and the average over the OECD countries is 47 percent. We have no responsibility for education, and yet in Canada and the UK and in Scandinavia, local governments are responsible for education expenses.

We have no responsibilities in health, whereas in Denmark, local government delivers 90 percent of the health budget. So, all things considered, you know, we have our particular remit, but we are shortchanged in terms of what we do with the money that we're given.

I will support this, but I have little confidence that this will advance our interests.

Councillor Wheeler, you claimed you were misrepresented.

I was, Mr Mayor. At no point did I say that the Greens conceived this idea. I said that the Greens had been pushing this idea since 2010. I made no claims on the Greens' behaviour prior to that, or who thought up this idea. That's ludicrous.

Thank you. Any

Further speakers? Councillor Conolly. Thanks, Mr Mayor. I agree with a lot of what Councillors Zamprogno says, but come to a different conclusion. I wouldn't support the recognition of local government in the Constitution. We're already one of the most over-governed nations in the world by bureaucrats and politicians to population. It's already outrageous. I think what's important to remember is that by securing long-term funding for local government, you're not going to find any more money. You're just going to move it, taxpayers' money from one level of government to taxpayers' money at another level of government. You haven't solved any problems. You've just changed. You've just provided security for a new bureaucracy that didn't have that security before and taken it from a different one.

Well, if we already have the security, what are we arguing about? I mean, I think— Please don't interrupt. Councillor Conolly has the floor. Happy to chat. I mean, but— Chat later

I do agree with Councillors Zamprogno. You feel almost an obligation to stick up for councils, and it's not about not sticking up for councils. I mean, council's doing a great job, and it's an important institution. But we're already here, both through state and local democracy. The state, you know, through the local level, we have our local council election, and we're elected by our local community. At the state level, we decide what policies of the state government we want in terms of local government, whether, you know, things like amalgamation, we're protected from through democracy as well. I think to be recognising the Constitution just has all sorts of issues around how that would work.

It's nowhere near as simple as just recognising. I mean, you'd then have to look at the fact, well, why does Hawkesbury Council, why is Hawkesbury Council Hawkesbury Council? Where do these boundaries come from? Why are they relevant? How are we any more worthy of constitutional recognition than other councils that could exist in this area? There's all sorts of issues, and I just don't think that having another permanent level of bureaucracy that takes taxpayers' money from a different level of government on a more secure basis is going to solve any problems in real life.

Thank you, Councillor Conolly. Councillor Ross.

Thank you, Mayor. Well, my colleagues across the chamber,

You've overlooked one minor point. If local government is in fact justifiable in your minds,

I might just alert you to the fact that the current state government is

Destroying the capacity we have to act as a democratic body, and that is clearly demonstrated in the recent code of meeting practice.

Very, very definitely, it is an absolute blight on our democratic system. The opportunity for me to pose a question of the staff here in person

And be heard by the ratepayers and residents who care to

Hook into the sound recording is now lost.

Questions will be put in writing. Answers will be given in writing. There will be no dictation or recitation provided of either the question or the answer.

Is that the practice in the State Parliament or in the Federal House? Either of them? At either level? And the answer is no. You are losing your democracy. I am losing my right to act as a councillor at the behest of a ridiculous State Government. And they are also

Whittling away our rights as a democratic institution to perform our work without being over-audited by them, who are apparently unable and incapable of getting their own act together. We see this all too readily with the Vineyard Stage 1 precinct and the mess that that is in at the moment, and is likely to go on in being a mess for some time. It is very important for the Commonwealth Government to raise this matter in a constitutional question, and it is very important for us to support it. Not because we're here to spend more money , but it's— We're here to represent our local people, residents, ratepayers, whomever, and ensure that they have their voices heard and have their wishes complied with as best we can do so, and not to be able to have to doff our hat at any silly-looking state politician who decides, as a minister for local government, that they're just going to go and turn around and change General Regulation 2005 or whatever the devil it is, and whittle away our right to act on behalf of the community.

No, this is a very important question, and I fully support the Mayor in us pursuing this matter with vigour. Thank you.

Further speakers?

Councillor Rasmussen. Yeah, thank you, Mr Mayor. I too support the motion, and I do it for a very simple reason, that council, all councils, have absolutely no protection against the whim of the state. We are absolutely out there naked. We have no armour. We have no protection at all against a vindictive and often inconsiderate state, whether that's Labor or Liberal or whatever. We are out there whim. We are totally bare and vulnerable. And as Councillor St Brogno said, it is very tiresome to have cost shifting on a regular basis over many years. It is creep and creep and creep and creep, and guess who wear it in the end? The ratepayers. It is double taxation. It is double taxation. So if we can solve that, and if it is soluble through a referendum to amend the Constitution to include councils as a legitimate and hardworking and an essential part of this community, of this nation, then it should be done, and it should have probably been done some years ago.

I take the point that Councillor St Brogden made that this question has been raised a couple of times and it has failed. I think the time has now come, the time has come in my view, that this is a question, a legitimate and right, and its time has come to be asked. Because I think a lot of people are absolutely tired of the nonsense that's going on in Canberra between the big giant political parties who seem to spend all day fighting each other and finding fault with each other. There is a nation to run. There is a real job to be done. And it doesn't include silly little boys and girls fighting, as is now happening at the federal level. And yes, there would be priorities, could be priorities for funding set so that local government did get its fair share of revenue on a regular and perhaps a sustainable basis.

And it wouldn't mean more money, and it wouldn't mean taxes are shifted. It would simply mean that the federal level would not be able to squander lots and lots of taxpayers' money on all sorts of idiotic things that they now do. Priority would be clearly So that funding, whatever funding that was taken out of the economy would be divvied up with priority to local government, and it wouldn't need any more funding. It would just be a priority setting. So I would support it, Mr Mayor, and I thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Before we proceed, I just realised there's a couple of words missing from the recommendation in the amendment. So what it should say is that Council work with Local Government NSW, other councils and local government bodies to progress a referendum at the next Commonwealth election, or as part of the next proposed referendum, to secure the recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution. That's

Okay

Thank you. Is anyone happy with that change? Is that all or anybody's thinking? No? Otherwise we'll continue. Councillor Richards.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. I, to be quite blunt at this point in time, am neither here nor there on this motion. I think, to me, it depends on if I'm going to advocate for something to go to a referendum, I want to see the model that's going to be put forward at the referendum. So whether it is as simple as should we recognise local government in the Constitution, or whether the question put to the Australian public would be will we recognise local government in the Australian Constitution and directly support it federally? Will we recognise, you know, local government and bypass the states and take away their legislative powers. So I, before I would commit either way on this one, I believe that I would like to investigate more detail out there with the community, with members of government.

I'd like to see how this would actually be put forward to the Australian people. I know that your recommendation is just about putting it per se, but I certainly believe that there's not enough detail on this. But as someone who is a representative of local government and a huge advocate for local government and knows what we do, I certainly believe in lobbying the state government at this point in time to amend the Local Government Act and give us different powers. Give us, as we all know over the last few years, the rates have been the most contentious issue. Give us some more. Different modelling with how we can come up with rating our ratepayers. So I believe that that's quite a crucial thing right now, making sure that we can lobby against those sorts of changes that help support us.

But with no extra detail right now on what would form the question to the Australian public, I'll vote against this one.

Further discussion?

No further discussion. I'll exercise my right of reply. Let me just go through some of the arguments that were put up by some of the speakers. Firstly, the argument that this was rejected in 1988 is really no argument to not ask the question again. I don't think we should give up on this matter. Just as we, I don't think we've given up on the matter of the republic. I think that'll come back as a question at some point. Just because you lose, it doesn't mean you give up, okay? Councillor Zamprogno talked about six years of labour. They had six years to put this in place. I was hoping that this would be more of a bipartisan approach because as far as I know, both major parties do support the concept, and I'd like to keep it as a bipartisan approach. And I did notice that Councillor Zamprogno ultimately said he would probably support this, which I appreciate.

All I'm asking is that we ask the government to ask the question, to ask the people. Not that we here are going to give some kind of big outline of how we would fit into the Constitution and where and why, just that we ask the Commonwealth government to go ahead and ask the people whether we should be recognised in the Constitution. In terms of— Whether we are over-governed, I don't see that as a relevant point. I mean, getting us included in the Constitution to me doesn't change whether we're over-governed or under-governed. It may shift a few things around, but it doesn't actually add any level of government. In terms of long-term funding, yes, it would matter. It would be probably a matter of moving funding from one source to another.

But what it does for local government, it provides us with the opportunity of a more secure long-term funding source. As I said in my earlier talk, it could be something like a certain percentage of the GST. If we were guaranteed some kind of permanent funding source, we could do a lot more planning for our community and not have to worry every year whether we're going to have the money that we had last year and not worry about the economy going up and down in terms of the value of the land. So I'm not asking that we here decide that it should go in the Constitution. I'm actually asking that we ask the government to ask the question to the people whether it should go in the Constitution. And because of that, it's the government, the Commonwealth Parliament, that will actually work out the question.

They'll have a select committee which will be appointed to work out the question and do the study. I'm not suggesting what the model should be. I'm suggesting that we should ask the federal government to ask the people, because I think it's time they did. If this is passed, I would like it to be sent to Local Government New South Wales, Australian Local Government Association. Where's Rock, and to our local federal member, Susan Templeman. Is there anyone else you'd like to get it sent to?

No. Well, that was my right of reply, so I'll now put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Calvert. Against the motion, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree, Councillor Richards. Absent, Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I declare the motion carried.

We now move to item 132. Oh, sorry, you're absolutely right. Items on exception report, items on block. Would someone like to move the items? Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Rasmussen. All those in favour say aye. Declare it carried. Now we move to item 133.

To review of policies, would someone like to move something on that?

I think Councillor Ross called a— did you want to move something on this, Councillor Ross?

General Manager.

That's correct, Mr Mayor. There'll be the 26 policies that are highlighted in this report will be brought to a council workshop. I might also note there is an error in the report. It refers— oh no, it's a later report, I apologise. No errors. Okay. Is anyone moving anything?

Is this a question? Because we don't have a motion on the table at the moment. You can, yes.

It's in regard to the sacrilege to the English language, Chairman. I'm just wondering why we have to put up with

This.

Does Council have a branch or branches? I'm looking to see where they are located.

You're talking about branch managers, are you ? Your question is, do we have branches, General Manager?

Mr Mayor, the organisation structure that's been adopted by Council and has been in place for many years comprises divisions that are headed by directors and branches that are headed by branch managers.

So the answer is yes, we do have branches. Any further questions? You have another question. Can you turn your light on, please?

This is not an audit, surely.

An audit

This was a review of policies, is it not, rather than an audit?

Is that your question? Yes, it's a review of policies.

Right. Well , why is it described as an audit?

I can answer that. The review is a longer-term process. It started with an audit of what policies we have in place. So the audit is the first part of the process. General Manager. That's correct, Mr Mayor. Mr Mayor,

I have a different view of the interpretation of the word audit. An audit is a deeper investigation of a particular matter or matters. A review is to do what we've done here. That's just to list out these things, and we at least know some of them that we didn't know before. We're not

Investigating them individually at this juncture. The General Manager will take your observations on board. Thank you, Councillor Ross. Councillor Wheeler.

I'll move the recommendation in the business paper. Seconded. Seconded

By Councillor Conolly. Moved by Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Conolly. Councillor Wheeler, do you wish to speak to it?

I'll look very briefly, Mr Mayor. All this is asking is that these reports come to Council or Councilors for a workshop. I'm not quite sure why some of them are here. Some of them are fairly recent and were developed by this Council. I assume that there's something that the staff feel needs flagging. The circus policy, for example, was adopted after public consultation by this Council in May 2017. I'm not quite sure why that's coming back to us so early in the piece, but I'm sure all will be revealed when we get to the workshop.

Thank you. Further speakers? Any further speakers ? Oh, okay. If there's no further speakers, I'll put the motion. Do you want right of reply, Councillor Wheeler? Didn't think so. It's been moved by Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Conolly. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, and Councillor Ross, and Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Lyons-Buckett.

Declare the item carried.

Next item is 133. Mr Mayor— Councillor Conolly. Thank you, Mr Mayor. I would like to move a motion— sorry, I should have written it out— that Council defer consideration of this item in order for Councillors to be able to have a discussion at the next briefing. It can just be an informal item at the end of the briefing, and that the matter be reported back to the next Council meeting.

That's my motion.

Do we have a seconder for that?

I think we discussed it at the last briefing.

Can I keep

If I could get a

Seconder

For discussion purposes only. Seconded by Councillor— We actually, Mr Mayor, my recollection is we did not discuss it at the meeting. It was brought to our attention and pretty much nobody said a word, and it wasn't a very conducive environment to have that discussion with no one prepared. I think there's a lot of benefits to potentially reducing the number of councillors to 11. I think I can see a lot of positives around not having a situation where the Mayor has a casting vote, not having a situation where the Mayor is determined by a ballot, by pulling a name out of a hat. I think it's more democratic to have an odd number of councillors. Makes very little difference overall to the proportion of councillors to population.

I'm not suggesting we go ahead and make that decision tonight, but I also note that we don't have to make this decision, I think, until 12 months before the election. So if councillors were at all inclined to consider it, I think we could have a discussion informally amongst ourselves at the next Council meeting, having thought about it and sought feedback from our communities, and then decide at the next Council meeting either to go ahead and leave it at 12, or that we might want to do something.

I just point out our next so-called briefing session is a workshop about committees, so we'd have to go to the briefing after that, and will that be before the next council meeting?

It should be.

We think so. Okay. I'm happy to separate that discussion from being at the next briefing and just defer to allow a discussion to take place, and I'm sure anyone who is interested in having that discussion to hang around for five or ten minutes at the end if we wanted to.

Next available briefing. Yes. Okay. Councillor Tree, are you happy with that change? Thought you would be, yes. Any further speakers? We can accept amendments at this stage if you wished. Don't let me encourage you. Or we can discuss it being deferred. No further discussion? Councillor Conolly, do you require right of reply? No. Councillor Ross, you have a question?

Yes. Is the suggestion

Just brought forward an amendment, or— No, it's a motion. There was no motion on the table until that. Okay.

So it's been moved and seconded. No one else wishes to speak? And you don't want right of reply? I already asked you that. So therefore I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour is Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sambrockner, Councillor Cottleash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Ross. Abstain is Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I declare the item passed.

Next item is 134, the Local Government New South Wales annual conference. Move the recommendation. There's an error in this report, and the General Manager would like to point that out.

Mr Mayor, various points through the report, the report makes reference to five motions when it should say six motions. There are six motions in the recommendation.

The recommendation is on page 46. Does anyone wish to move anything?

Councillor Rasmussen, is that— Move the recommendation. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Kotlash. Councillor Rasmussen, do you wish to speak to it? No, thank you, Mr Mayor. Does anyone wish to speak to it?

Okay, Councillor Wheeler, yes.

I'm just wondering if the motions as tabled are sufficient to carry the message to the— or is this the suggested wording that we're putting towards Local Government New South Wales, or are we intending to fill those in a bit at the moment? They're not— some of them, motion five, for example, doesn't make suggestions towards it. It doesn't actually have— doesn't have an action item in it, really. It's not a full sentence, to be the grammar Nazi, and it doesn't really have a lot of information in it. When you get to conference, there's usually a grab bag of recommendations that sit together. So where multiple councils have submitted similar motions, they'll all be lumped together, and you tend to vote on the one that is the least offensive.

So the one that's the most broad brush tends to be the one that is presented as the sort of the motherhood statement. And I think it's probably, and the idea then is that all the other motions are carried with that. There's a danger in that, I think, is if yours is the most motherhood statement and it doesn't have enough information in it, that the motion that then is used by Local Government New South Wales to act on doesn't necessarily have all the information and the action items that the relevant council was hoping for. So I would like to see these developed a bit further. I don't object to any of them. I think they're all useful, but I would like to see some of them have a bit more information contained in the motions themselves.

They're very brief. Mr Conroy.

Mr Mayor, there is a format that the Office of New South Wales Local Government requires us to work through. It extends to about three quarters of a page. We put a précis of the motion in place at the moment so that if council are supportive of those six motions, we'll complete the template and then submit those to the Local Government Association.

Councillor Wheeler. Okay.

The only problem with that then is that we don't actually know what is going to be filled in in the place of those motions. I understand that this needs to be done in time for them to be submitted, but the general manager is asking council to vote for something that we haven't seen, and I think that's a problematic precedent to set.

It is the approach we've adopted in previous years, where we've put forward a précis of the item. If Councillor Remind to see a more expanded version, we can circulate that. The essence of these issues has all been discussed by Council on previous occasions. We're not proposing anything that departs from the previous discussions in Council.

Perhaps if the wording could be forwarded to Councilors, to Council laws before it's submitted, that would be appropriate.

We could add that as a point five, if you like. Councillor Conolly, you're happy to add that?

I was Councillor Rasmussen, sorry. You're happy to add that? Yep.

And seconded was Councillor Cartlidge. Item behind. You're happy too? Yes. Thank you. Councillor Wheeler, that suits your... Yes

Thank you, Mr Mayor.

Any other speakers? Councillor Ross.

Element two, I think we should have a couple more motions. I'm just wondering why we wouldn't include a motion regarding the referendum for local government in

The National Constitution.

Possibly because it wasn't passed till about five minutes ago. Could we not add it? I'll ask Mr Connery. Can we now add other motions?

Mr Mayor, yes, there's still scope for Council to suggest other motions.

You'd like to suggest that one be added? Yes, please. Councillor Wheeler,

And in

Addition— Sorry, yeah, keep going.

I'd like a further motion to be added to the effect that the current code of meeting practice

Be overturned and in its place the old one reinstated.

Okay .

Thank you. Well

That's not a motion that's been passed by Council.

Only motions that have been passed by Council could go on that list.

I see. Okay.

It's your opinion, which could be correct. Right.

So, yep. Councillor Wheeler.

Just a point on Councillor Ross's suggestion regarding the referendum. I think that's already an accepted position of the Local Government Association. It doesn't preclude Council putting that up. But what will happen is that we'll end up at the back of the book with all the things that have already been passed. So it just sort of adds to the volume of support, but it doesn't really achieve very much.

Even so, Councillor Ross has asked that it be included, and he's happy to stay with that, I imagine. And Councillor Rasmussen is happy to include it in his motion.

Any further speakers?

No further speakers. Councillor Rasmussen, you want to right of reply? Very

Mr Mayor, thank you.

Not necessary

I will move the motion as it appears on page 46, with the addition of that extra point. And there was another one from Councillor Wheeler that the full text of these be circulated. Okay. So it's six points all—sorry, seven motions, five points. Okay. All happy with that? I'll move that. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour, Councillor Ross, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Calvert. Against is Councillors Zamprogno, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Tree and Councillor Richards. Absent is Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I declare the motion carried.

We now have to work out which councillors would like to go. General Manager, how many can we send?

Council has five voting positions, Mr Mayor, so you'd need to send five to use those voting entitlements.

Councillor Kotlash.

I'd like to nominate to go.

Okay. Please.

Thank you

So would I. Two . Any more? Councillor Wheeler. Councillor Ross. Warwick

Farm.

Yeah, the Deputy Mayor may wish to attend.

Deputy Mayor makes five. She is.

Okay . You're lights on, Councillor Wheeler. Oh. Okay.

Councillor Kotlash, you wanted to move those five people. I think you were talking about accommodation costs or something else earlier.

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you, Mr Mayor. Warwick Farm is, I think, a couple of hours away from where I'd be coming from, so that— Well, now

No, I'm not walking. Please continue,

Councillor Kotlash.

Thank you. So is there money in the budget for accommodation? For this, because it's a fairly arduous three days without...

General

Manager? Mr Mayor, there is money in the budget for this and I suppose I'd make an observation that it's not a direct rail route. If it was in the city, as it has been previously, it's very easy to get into the city. With Warwick Farm, you're probably going to have to either go in peak hour in the morning or you're going to have to get a train and change stations and go out to Warwick Farm, so it's going to be not as straightforward as normal.

So would the process be that any councillors who require accommodation should apply? Would that be the process?

That would be satisfactory, Mr Mayor.

That's what Councillor Kotlash is saying. Yes.

Thank you.

58 minutes from Windsor, but Kurrajong Heights..

It's been moved by Councillor Kotlash that those five councillors be the delegates and also that any councillor requiring accommodation may apply. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Rasmussen. Anyone speak against it or— I'll put the motion. This is a procedural motion. No we have to stand up again, sorry. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Sam Progrono, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Ross and Councillor Calvert. Absent is Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Declare it carried.

Move to item 135, Deerubbin Park Master Plan. Moved Councillor Rasmussen, seconded Councillor Richards. Any— Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to speak?

Mr Mayor, just briefly, it's a great piece of work. I think it strikes a great master plan for this, or that particular park. It's a great park, and I think we should, yeah, try and implement it and try and fund it the best we can. But I congratulate the people who put all this work together because I think it is a great master plan.

Thank you, Councillor Wheeler.

Thanks, Mr Mayor. This has the potential to be a really beautiful site. It's already a very heavily used site, and I think it's clear that any money that is invested will bring a lot of benefit to the community. The Hawkesbury is becoming increasingly used by a variety of organisations throughout New South Wales for sporting meets, particularly school sport, and they're really impressed by our sporting facilities. The common complaints, though, are things like the amenities blocks aren't large enough, or that we don't cater, in particular in this park, for female athletes. And so I think in the interests of fairness, but also in the interest of bringing additional people to the Hawkesbury who then use our accommodation—often these tournaments last for a week or more—they use our accommodation, they come into our town centres, they eat in our restaurants, they come with their families.

The better our sporting facilities are, the more of these groups we will attract. And I think this is a site that's heavily used by the local community, but it's increasingly being used by the wider community as well. My only concern when we put this on public exhibition, because it is very beautiful, it's also— A bit pricey is that once it's exhibited, there will be an expectation that Council will deliver this, and I think we have to make it really, really clear that this is actually a wish list, not a promise of future work at this point because we simply can't afford it. And I think we need to make sure that the community understands that when it goes out, because otherwise we'll have the usual case of two years down the track people saying, Well, we thought this was fantastic.

You said you were going to do it, and you haven't done anything. So hopefully that can be made crystal clear when it goes out. The only bit of the design that I'm not completely delighted with is the viewing platform, which I suspect will turn into a diving platform. That close to South Creek, I can't see that that's a grand idea. Rickaby's, sorry, Rickaby's Creek. Yes, well, and others. Maybe that needs revising, but I think we'll get some feedback from the community about that.

Thank you, General Manager. Did you wish to address any of those issues?

Mr Mayor, the officers are acutely aware of the fact that we don't want to build expectations that this is going to happen very quickly. This is a long-term plan to guide our applications for grants and our progressive works over time. And the report does make reference to the fact that those points will be included in documentation.

Thank you. Any further discussion?

No. Councillor Rasmussen, you wish to have right of reply?

Just briefly, Mr Mayor, I recall sitting here some many years ago arguing for the Windsor Master Plan. Which Council has spent some $90,000 on, and it was being bagged left, right and centre by the then councillors. And I said, because it was a wish list. It was, Oh gosh, what a dreamland this is. You know, nothing. This is not going to happen. Now, as it turned out, the Windsor Master Plan at that time wasn't passed. However , quite a few of the items, the infrastructure items that were listed in the Windsor Master Plan are now almost there, almost there. So I kept saying to them, you know, you never know. You know, you're lucky in a big city. So, you know, once you've got a master plan, it doesn't equate to it'll be done tomorrow.

And I do recognise that we do need to make sure that the expectations out there are not overblown. But I think we need to have this sort of thing on the table, and we need to have it so that in case there is somebody looking down on us and saying, Oh, at a federal election or something similar in the future, would you like, you know, $10 million or $60 million or

$

5 million or something? Because it is now the most, what is the term we are using? It is the most marginal electorate in the Hawkesbury, and thank goodness for that.

Thank you, Councillor Rasmussen. That was right of reply. I'll put the motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour of the motion: Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen and Councillor Ross and Councillor Calvert. Absent: Councillor Lyons-Buckett. Declare the item carried.

Item 138, the audit committee. Move

That

One . You can sit down now, Councillors. Councillor Ross.

Move.

Councillor Ross Steady slide on first, I think.

Councillor Ross. I'd just like to make an observation, if that's possible. Question. However you want to put it. I received advice today that the audit committee meeting minutes, which are presented this evening,

Have been put to Council prior to them being directed to the individual members of the committee.

I find that rather extraordinary, and I believe it's improper.

I believe the committee members should have been provided the minutes well and truly before this time, which is now, what, six weeks to get a set of minutes out from a committee meeting, which is, I think, unprofessional to the extreme. It's supposed to be a question, Councillor Ross. Yes. Well, I could inquire as to why it would take six weeks to produce a set of minutes when we have additional, presumably secretarial services, as we've been advised. General Manager.

Mr Mayor, as I understand it, this is our normal custom and practice, and it's been in place for many years. If Council wishes to change that process, we can change that process. But the conventions are that the— Meeting occurs. The minutes are produced, they're presented to a council meeting, and then they're formally presented back to that committee at the next meeting of that committee. That's the normal process.

Do you have a further question, Councillor? Should there be a question over the minutes of a particular committee meeting, and I think one, my fellow councillors should be aware that although the audit committee is in fact an advisory committee, as all other committees are, it has a particular remit which has an implication of

A slightly different stance. Please make this into a question,

Councillor Yes, it is developing the context around which to place it, you know. And as a result,

I believe it is

Well suggested to the general manager and his staff that this committee at least be afforded a different treatment if that is possible, and I would request that it be done such that the minutes are produced on a more timely basis, for one, and that they precede the publication of those minutes. Please precede the holding of a council meeting at which the adoption of those minutes may fall due, because there is always the possibility of some matter. of moment, which may require alteration to minutes, which would— So your question

Is, can those things be done? Can those things be done, Mr General Manager?

Mr Mayor, look, we're happy to look at the practice of other audit committees in local government and see what better practice is. I would make the point this is not circumventing the role of the Audit Committee. The minutes will go back to the Audit Committee, they will be reviewed, and if there's an issue that will be raised in the minutes of that committee, and that will be reported back to Council. So it's a transparent process, it's consistent with Council's past practice, but we're happy to review it and see if there's a better way of doing it. Councillor Conolly

Thanks , move the recommendation, Mr Mayor. Moved by Councillor Conolly. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Rasmussen. With

An observation, actually, as well. Perhaps just a little bit of feedback, I guess. I mean, the report at the front is very useful. There was a point here, it just says on page 64, in regard to point 4 of the above resolution, the disparity in the reporting is currently being investigated and will be reported back to the next meeting, which is fine. The point 4 it's referring to just says, the disparity in reporting of the commercial leases and property management audit, and the list off where that comes from. It would be really useful if that could just have a really short explanation of what that is, so I don't have to go look for it. But otherwise, I'm happy to move the recommendation. Okay

Any further speakers?

No further speakers. Would you like right of reply, Councillor Conolly No. In that case, I'll put this motion. All those in favour, please stand.

In favour, Councillor Richards, Councillor Tree, Councillor Conolly, Councillor Zamprogno, Councillor Kotlash, Councillor Wheeler, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor Garrow, Councillor Rasmussen, Councillor Calvert. Against, Councillor Ross. Absent is Councillor Lyons-Buckett. I declare the— The matter carried.

Item 143 is a confidential matter. One four... which one are we up to? 140

Yes, sorry. Questions. We have one question from the previous meeting. This is on page 142. General Manager, do you wish to speak to that?

No, I think all the information is there unless there's a question on it.

Any questions on it?

No.

On the motion of Councillor Wheeler, seconded by Councillor Rasmussen, that: one, Council acquire the property at 102 Settlers Road, Wisemans Ferry, Lot 100 in DP 1084310, from Radomil Patensky, for the amount detailed in the report; two, each party bear their own costs associated with the acquisition; three, following acquisition of the property, Council classify 102 Settlers Road, Wisemans Ferry, Lot 100 in DP 1084310 as operational under Section 31(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1993 for authority be given for any documentation in association with this matter to be executed under the seal of Council; five, details of resolution be conveyed to the affected landowner together with the advice that Council will not be bound by the terms of the resolution until such time as appropriate documentation to put such a resolution into effect has been agreed to and executed by all parties.

This recommendation was adopted by Councillors Ross, Rasmussen, Garrow, Reynolds, Wheeler, Kotlash, Zamprogno, Conolly, Tree, Richards and Calvert. Councillor Lyons Barker was not present at the meeting.

Thank you, and we don't need to re-adopt it now, do we? Any further business? If not, I'll close the meeting at 9.05 p.m. Thank you.